Q. Is not the halibut fishery entirely a deep-sea fishery.-A. Yes. Q. Would you not be surprised to hear of any inshore halibut fishing of any consequence?-A. I had one vessel make two trips to the north shore of the St. Lawrence, up at Seven Islands. They were successful in getting one or two trips; but they tried four other times to get trips and were unsuccessful.

Q. From your experience and knowledge, what likelihood would there be in the truth of a story of a large number of vessels going into Cape Sable Island to catch mackerel, and getting heavy catches?-A. I never heard of any vessels fishing in there; it is very improbable, indeed.

Q. You are also engaged in the herring fishery ?-A. Somewhat; my business in herring is limited.

Q. What do you do in the way of the herring business?-A. I know about the business. I have had some experience in it, and have had vessels engaged in it.

Q. What is the herring fishing? Is it a fishing business or a mercantile business, as far as Gloucester is concerned?-A. Our vessels go to the places where the herring are fished in the winter time, and buy them from the shore-men, freeze them, carry them to market, and sell them as an article of food, principally. We use some in our business for bait in the winter time; but we sell them principally as an article of food. Q. Then it is entirely a mercantile transaction?-A. We don't fish for any. We buy them from the people on the shore, who catch them. Q. With your experience of the fisheries, and the interest you have in them, what is your opinion in regard to returning to the old system of charging $2 per barrel duty on British fish, or giving up the duty for the privilege of fishing inshore. Which would you prefer, and what do you think about it?-A. I don't know that I should advocate such a going back as that in these times. I believe in going ahead. The time has passed to go back to such a state of affairs.

Q. Would you, as a business man, prefer to have the privilege of fishing within the three-mile limit, or would you prefer to have the duty of $2 per barrel imposed on fish coming into competition with your fish, and be excluded from the three-mile limit ?-A. I would answer that in this way in connection with any business personally, I would very much prefer the $2 per barrel duty. But I looked at it in a broader sense, when I answered it as I did at first. I would not advocate the idea, because my own personal interest is very small, compared with the needs of both countries. It is a step I would not be in favor of endeavoring to carry into effect. Personally, it would be decidedly for my benefit.

Q. To a certain extent it would be a pecuniary benefit to you; but you think it would be illiberal either to charge a duty of $2 per barrel on British fish, or to exclude our fishermen from the three-mile limit ?— A. I do. I was very decidedly against taking off the 'duty at that time, but it has passed.

By Mr. Foster:

Q. Who pays the duty ?-A. It comes from the producer of the fish. Q. Why?-A. I don't think the small quantity of fish which comes in from the provinces, compared with our quantity, affects the price of fish to our consumers. If they have to pay a duty, they will have to have it deducted when the receipts for the fish are sent back. A duty does not affect the price to the consumer. It would have a tendency to prevent people continuing the business here, which might in time make a shorter catch, and give us the advantage. If there should be $2 per barrel duty imposed, I have my idea of what would become of the busi

ness.

By Mr. Dana:

Q. The fishing business at Gloucester has been built up within the last 25 or 30 years?—A. I think it has. The different departments have been drawn in.

Q. Has it not been built up at the expense of other towns? Take Marblebead; it used to be a famous fishing place.-A. Yes. Marblehead four or five years ago had forty vessels; this year it has eight. Beverly has decreased to 22; formerly it had a great number. Manchester sends out none now; I remember when it sent out eighteen vessels.

Q. So that whatever increase there has been at Gloucester, you can trace it as having been drawn from other fishing towns; in other words, the trade has been centralized?—A. Yes. Our products are also brought in by eastern vessels from along the shore of Maine, which come in and sell their cargoes. That quantity goes into our product. It makes business for us.

By Mr. Davies:

Q. You are under the impression that the producer would pay the duty-A. That is my impression, that the consumer would hardly know the difference in price.

Q. That is based on the promise that a very small quantity of fish comes in from the provinces ?-A. Not altogether on that.

Q. If it is not upon that data, upon what data do you form that conclusion?-A. That the price of fish is not governed by the men who produce it or put it in the market for sale. We have to take what we can get. We cannot make the price of fish; there is no union about it, and whether there is a duty paid or not, the price of fish to the con sumers or middle men is not regulated by how much it cost to produce it or how much duty is paid on it.

Q. Is not the market for fish regulated by the ordinary laws of supply and demand?-A. Not altogether.

Q. How do you account for the extraordinary variation in price, which appears to depend very much on the quantity produced?-A. It depends somewhat on that, but the market for mackerel has not done so. This year we had a very small catch of mackerel, but the price has been low, very low compared with the catch. It is higher than it would have been if we had caught three times as many.

Q. Showing that the quantity produced has regulated the price?A. Not altogether.

Q. To a large extent. I will take the illustration you have given. There has been a very poor catch this year on your coast ?-A. Yes, rather light.

Q. I was told by a very large fish dealer that he had a quantity of mackerel, No. 1, in Boston, and he expected to get $28 per barrel for it. Is that near the market price?-A. I have not heard of any such price being mentioned.

Q. What is the price of No. 1 mess mackerel ?-A. Caught where? Q. I don't care where. Is there any difference?-A. I have not heard of any price being paid this year over $22 per barrel. That was for the best mess mackerel, and of those few are wanted. Q. Is $22 a high price?-A. Yes.

Q. Is that not caused by the lightness of the catch on your coast!— A. No. There is a certain call for a particular class of mackerel, and if you can supply that mackerel you can obtain a certain price. When you increase the quantity of that class, the price will fall. There is a

certain trade which wants nice mackerel and will pay a good price for it.

Q. Is that the average price of No. 1 mess mackerel ?-A. No; it is a little high.

Q. How much too high?-A. They are usually $18, $19, or $20, when there is a good catch. I think $22 is a little higher than the average price over a series of years. From $18 to $20 would be the average price of No. 1 mess mackerel.

Q. What did mess mackerel bring last year?—A. I sold mess mackerel at about $17; there was a very short catch, indeed.

Q. And the price this year is $5 higher than last year?—A. Yes. Q. Don't you think that is accreditable, to a very large extent, to the lightness of the catch this year on your coast ?-A. Perhaps it might a very few dollars on the barrel.

Q. And if there was a duty imposed, and no extraordinary catch, do you not think the consumer would pay the duty?-A. No; because I don't think you could depend on a small catch if you had a duty imposed. You might have a large catch and a duty.

Q. I am taking this year. Suppose there was a duty on mackerel this year, who would pay it on the mackerel ?—A. The man who caught them would pay the duty.

Q. Although he got $5 more per barrel than last year?-A. Not on account of the duty.

Q. On account of the lightness of the catch?-A. That would not affect the duty at all.

Q. If he had to pay a duty of $2 per barrel, he would get $5 per barrel more than last year?-A. Does he get any more if it is free or less than if there was a duty on this year? Customers do not think anything about duty when they purchase mackerel. The duty has nothing to do with regulating the price; the quantity caught has something to with it.

Q. And therefore the quantity imported would have something to do with the price?-A. It has some effect on it.

Q. Suppose one-half the mackerel consumed in the United States was imported, what would be the effect?-A. It would affect the price; it would make our prices low.

Q. Must not one-fourth of any product being imported materially affect the price?-A. It does, somewhat.

Q. Does it not materially?-A. It is according to the kind that is produced. Certain kinds of mackerel will sell better than other kinds. Q. A return shows that the mackerel imported into the United States from 1871 to 1876 ranged at about 90,000 barrels. That is about onefourth of your annual consumption?-A. There are about 250,000 barrels annually inspected in Massachusetts, and 50,000 in Maine; it is therefore less than one-fourth.

Q. It is between one-third and one-fourth. Don't you think the importation of that quantity must necessarily affect the market?-A. Yes; that is what we are afraid of.

Q. And when you spoke about being against going back to the old state of things you spoke as a citizen of the United States, not as a person engaged in the fishing business simply?-A. Yes.

Q. Speaking as a fisherman, would you prefer to have the duty on?— A. Personally, I would rather have the duty on.

Q. Why?-A. Because the duty is better for us, for it would have a tendency in years of good catches to prevent your people from increasing their business. It has that tendency.

Q. Has it any tendency to better you as well as to injure your neigh bors?-A. That is what we were looking for-for better prices.

Q. Has it a tendency to increase prices to your fishermen ?-A. It would.

Q. So, if it increases the price of the fish it strikes me the consumer must pay the increased price.-A. I am not clear that the duty has any. thing to do with it; it is the catch.

Q. You are a large fish-merchant; you have not gone and prosecuted the fishery as a fisherman yourself?-A. No.

Q. And therefore you cannot speak from any personal experience as to where the fish are taken ?-A. No.

Q. When you spoke, therefore, of the halibut-fishing, you spoke only from information gathered in your business, not from being actually present and seeing the locality where they were taken ?-A. My means of knowing was by inquiring of the men where they fished.

Q. Therefore you would not be prepared to contradict those who actually stated that the fish were taken in certain localities?—A. Certainly not.

Q. We have bad some evidence of halibut-fishing on the southeastern point of Nova Scotia, and in a bay called Lobster Bay and around Cape Sable Island; would you be prepared to deny that halibut are taken there?-A. Certainly not.

Q. When you made answer to Mr. Trescot that fish had no commercial value, what are we to gather as the full meaning of that answer ?—A. That the men, in catching, curing, and preparing fish for market, do not get any more for their time than common, ordinary labor in any other department.

Q. Do I understand that the capital invested in fishing does not produce a greater return than capital invested in any other branch of industry, or does not produce as much ?—A. It does not produce as much. The cost of procuring and preparing the fish is equal to the proceeds. I mean as regards the fish producer; I do not mean as regards the merchants.

Q. You confine that answer to those who invest their capital in producing fish as a food product?-A. Yes; to those who bring it in in a green state.

Q. And the people who are engaged in that fishing make a fair living out of it?—A. Well, they make about $30 a month for ten months in the year.

Q. Some of the most prudent, competent, and successful fishermen laying up something?-A. Yes; we have some among us who have done so. One man perhaps in a hundred has by his tact, luck, and energy succeeded better. They commence in this way. A man of that kind we will pick out as a master, and he will get his share, and a commission which will amount to as much as his share. We pay 4 per cent. to the master, which makes him a double sharesman. He can save something, and he goes up the ladder.

Q. But the mass of men engaged in fishing make a fair living ?—A. They make $300 a year.

Q. Would that be a fair average?-A. My opinion is that it would be a very fair average.

Q. Do you supply their food?-A. While on board the vessels. They board themselves when on shore.

Q. Is the sum of $300 their net proceeds?-A. Yes, for a year's work ; several voyages together.

Q. There are incidental profits in all large business?-A. Yes.

Q. And those you had not taken into consideration when you made your answer in regard to fish in the water having no commercial value. The mackerel and middle men make money out of them?-A. I did not include them.

Q. The men who actually go in the vessel do not make money out of them?-A. No; money is made by middlemen.

Q. How is it that shrewd, enterprising, practical men like the Gloucester people, continue to keep their capital in that business, if they lose money?-A. We would be very glad to have some better business pointed out.

Q. Do you know of no better business?-A. Yes.

Q. Why do you not go into it?-A. Gloucester Harbor is one of the best on the coast; we possess all the facilities for carrying on this business of producing an article of food, which other places do not; we have learned the business and we propose to keep in it, whether we make or lose. If we cannot pay our debts we will assign and commence again.

Q. But is there not an aggregation of wealth in Gloucester? Has there not been an increase in wealth ?-A. Very small, indeed, among those in the fishing business. Some rich men may move in and pay

taxes.

Q. You have said that you knew very few men who had retired from the business; perhaps they do not retire but keep their money in it.— A. It is difficult for a man to retire and to sell out.

Q. You are not a member of the firm of Procter Brothers ?-A. They are publishers. They are relations of mine.

Q. They have published a pamphlet on the Gloucester fisheries?A. Yes.

Q. Have you read it ?-A. I think I have.

Q. Are the men engaged in the fishing business?-A. No.

Q. They live in Gloucester ?-A. Yes.

Q. And are in business in Gloucester ?-A. Yes, as publishers and keepers of a variety store. They were born there, and always lived there. They make themselves acquainted by conference with those in the fishery business.

Q. Have they conversed with you about it from time to time?—A. For any point they wished particularly to know about.

Q. Is it an annual work they publish ?-A. They don't publish an annual work. That book was got up for the Centennial, and to advertise Gloucester.

Q. You have given the value of the fish product in 1876 as $4,648,500-A. That amount I did not give as mine.

Q. You indorsed it generally?-A. I thought it was nearly correct. I thought the figures rather high.

Q. They give for 1875 $3,901,500. I will read what is stated in this pamphlet as the cause of the development at Gloucester:

Subject to perils like these and hardships greater than we can describe or imagination conceive, the fisherman plies his busy trade. Through his labors mainly, Gloucester has grown from a population of 6,350 and a valuation of one million dollars in 1840 to a present population of 16,754 and a valuation exceeding nine millions, showing, in the brief period of thirty-five years, an increase of 264 per cent. in population, 853 per cent. in valuation, 3584 per cent. in dwellings, 442 per cent. in wharves, and 213 per cent. in vessels. Through his skilled operations and the advantages taken of his labors, the fishing business of Gloucester has grown from an enterprise of secondary importance to rank among the valuable producing interests of the country. Less than thirty years ago, in 1847, the total value of the fishery products of Gloucester amounted to $589,354. Last year (1875) the production of the Gloucester fleet was as follows: (The figures are here given.) The total is $3,909,500.